And now for something completely different...a bit of bible study

[I_Love_Oregon]

Read the following two translated versions of the same bible verse from Luke. In 17:21, the King James version uses the words "within you" to describe what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees when they asked him about the Kingdom of God, and where it can be found. Whereas, the Revised Standard version uses the words, "Midst of you" to describe the same thing. I find this discrepancy fascinating, and it speaks volumes about the difficulty scholars have had trying to figure out the exact meaning of what Jesus said. The difference between "within you" and "in the midst of you" is the difference between night and day. If Jesus really did mean that the kingdom of God lives within each of us, as opposed to the kingdom simply being "right in front of them", than the implications, while not fully understood by my feeble brain, are nonetheless, clearly significant.

I also find the footnote comment written by the tranlator included after the New Standard version to be interesting as well. Reading it, the author seems quite certain of his analysis. But to me it seems rather like he's working very hard to justify the translation to fit his pre-conceived notion of what Jesus MUST surely have meant. I also think his analysis, on its face, is incorrect. Why couldn't Jesus have meant "within you" to these Pharisees? At other times, Jesus speaks of the potential, or the seeds, of God in all of us, including the most despicable, such as murderers, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that, even though Jesus knew these Pharisees were his enemies, that EVEN THEY, if given the chance, could find the light of God living in them.

One final thought.. keep in mind that the King James version is considered a more literal translation of the actual Greek used in the original text than is the Revised Standard. Here's a quote from a bible scholar:

September-October 1988 The Good News magazine states, "The Authorized or King James Version is clearer and more faithful to the original Hebrew than most modern translations because the King James Version is not an attempt to interpret the text" (page 21).



Luke 17:20-21

www.bible.com King James version:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you


www.bible.org Revised Standard version:

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

Footnote comment included with this version:
<snip>
This is a far better translation than "in you." Jesus would never tell the hostile Pharisees that the kingdom was inside them. The reference is to Jesus present in their midst. He brings the kingdom. Another possible translation would be "in your grasp."
</snip>

[DalvaThree]

1. which is the version used most often?

I find it quite amazing that translator presumes to speak for Jesus. Is this a point of contention amongst Christians?

[I_Love_Oregon]

2. yes and no

It matters who you ask and how dogmatic they are.

I agree with your statement. The bible has been translated over and over, and it is full of obtuseness... especially with regard to what Jesus said.


It is said he had to be that way in order to avoid persecution, which he obviously, ultimately, couldn't avoid anyway.

[DalvaThree]

3. how is this verse taught in most churches?

[I_Love_Oregon]

6. most churches

Including mine, go to great lengths to distance themselves from any notion that anyone, other than Jesus himself, has the potential for Godliness, or to be another Jesus. I think this is the fear we see in the translated comment, and the usage of "in the midst of" in most translated versions.

And I agree that there is only ONE Jesus, and it is the fool who thinks we all have that potential. However, I don't this is what Jesus meant by "within you". I think it was a simple reference to the light of God within each of us... a light that the church readily accepts, and is often referred to as the "Holy Ghost".

[DalvaThree]

7. yes

"I think it was a simple reference to the light of God within each of us... "

That's how I read it too.

[Hissyspit]

13. We Don't Even Know What He Actually Said, Assuming He Did Even Exist...

Scholarship reveals evidence of quotes attributed to Jesus added later on.

[drhilarius]

4. The second translation seems to contradict the spirit of the...

verse.

First quote: Jesus implies that the Kingdom of God is not something that will come gradually or suddenly, that will be heralded by omens. Most importantly, he states that it can't be observed, because it is something (life force, trace of life, what have you)which is inside of us.

Second quote: This translation suggests that heaven is something that can only be observed ("in your grasp" and "amongst"), thus it would have signs and omens that would need to be perceived in order that the kingdom (amongst us) can be observed. In other words, if its merely amongst you, then you can point to it and say "lo, there it is" or "there".

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the RSV is the translation favored by fundies. The first verse, it seems, would contradict the hellfire and apocalyptic fury of revelations, which is all about signs and omens, whereas the second verse affirms it, and we all know how important revelations is to the fundies.

[WildClarySage]

8. Most of the fundies I've heard from on this subject are insistent on

the King James for their biblical references. Which is ironic, I think, considering their intense condemnation for homosexuality.

[necso]

5. "At other times,

Jesus speaks of the potential, or the seeds, of God in all of us..."

Agree, a reasonable interpretation.

I could also go with something on the order of "as it exists, it exists within those who accept it" (as a way to view the text, of course -- not as a literal interpretation).

But I think that the Gospels bear very careful analysis.

[mordarlar]

9. It is in cases like this that it is important to look at Biblical context.

the Bible suggests SEVERAL times that we are divine in our essence. The idea is God's first created were divine. They were immortal. This is the idea of made in His image. They became diseased in their souls when they "ate" of the tree of knowledge. The kingdom of God is "within" but with the corruption of spirit, which many Christians WRONGLY IMO deem to be superficial practices, has to be cleared away. The corruption in our spirits are the things which cause us to be callous to others. The idea of human divinity is further clarified by the lost Gospel texts, commonly called the "nostics".

Some passages where Christ says who will be "saved"...



Matthew 25
The Sheep and the Goats
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”


Matthew 18:21-35



The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventyseven times.

23“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

29“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

30“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”

[necso]

14. I like those quotations.

And it is a good point -- people are to be treated as though the Kingdom of God were within them (one's acts towards other people must be as though these acts were directly towards God -- regardless of whether or not these people accept the Kingdom). -- This is effectively a direct interpretation of the scripture.

However as an atheist, I cannot accept the "divinity" of man. Such "divinity" exists only to the degree that men make it so -- and they can really only make it so within themselves. Of course, this doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to lead by example, or try to "enlighten" his brothers and sisters.

I am all for struggling to achieve the life of principle (my "divine")... But one problem is determining what makes up the "divine".

And what I like most about (the best) language of the Gospels, is that I see all three of these messages (and I can't rule out more) as being contained within the words. And once one has achieved an idea of the "message" and its style of language, one can appreciate great depth within it.

[mordarlar]

20. Thank you for responding. : D....

>>>And it is a good point -- people are to be treated as though the Kingdom of God were within them (one's acts towards other people must be as though these acts were directly towards God -- regardless of whether or not these people accept the Kingdom). -- This is effectively a direct interpretation of the scripture.<<<

Very beautifully spoken.

>>>I am all for struggling to achieve the life of principle (my "divine")... But one problem is determining what makes up the "divine".<<<

It is my opinion that divine is whatever an individual perceives it as. Personal journey no matter where it leads us is extremely personal. Within the framework of your first statement about the treatment of others, i believe a persons faith (i see atheism as a faith)leads them exactly where they are SUPPOSED to be.

>>>And once one has achieved an idea of the "message" and its style of language, one can appreciate great depth within it.<<<

This is where i see religion as problematic. It often limits personal seeking of knowledge and the growth that results. It is in the interpretation that we find the wisdom, in any faith.

[necso]

31. Ah, but now we are entering my quibble-zone.

(If we hadn't already.)

Many of my "principles" (my "divine") arise directly from the character and patterns of the world around us or from the collected wisdom of mankind (itself, perhaps, something in the form of "natural observations") -- or so I see it.

For example, that resources are limited brings one directly to the concept (and, in my eyes, the principle) of thrift... regardless of whether or not one treats the resource as being inherently worthy of some respect (and I believe that one should respect things based on, and in accordance with, their determinable nature).

And many of what are commonly considered as "values", I would suggest are in fact "cultural values", and as such are to be influenced (and indeed constrained) by the more universal values arising directly from the world -- or from the collected (and somewhat universal) wisdom of mankind.

And I would also quibble with "interpretation" leading to wisdom. As I see it, "understanding" leads to wisdom, "interpretation" can be too much like "knowledge extraction" -- and knowledge without a broad understanding is an empty shell that can lead to many abuses.

Moreover, I am not at all clear that I agree with: "i believe a persons faith (i see atheism as a faith) leads them exactly where they are SUPPOSED to be", even in the narrow context that you use. Since I believe that there is some body of principle arising more or less directly from the world around us, I see this body of principle as being a point to which all people should go, to be supplemented with such "cultural values" as their honest and open-minded journey leads them to acheive.

And I am afraid that for some atheists, atheism is a journey away from principle (faith). The black-hearted nihilists at the "heart" of the neocon movement would, I think, be a good example of this. But this is not the case for all atheists.

I should also make clear that I do not treat people as though they were "divine" (too "sectarian" for me). -- I give everyone some measure of "respect" to start off with, to be added to or subtracted from as they merit. But I am willing to use the most horrific measures against people where they prove to be irredeemably "evil" (that is, completely lacking in and working against a "life of principle").

Best wishes. -- "Faith" is a most difficult journey.

[mordarlar]

32. What i believe....

While i agree with you that character is mostly "developed" though ones life exp and influences, I have found for myself there is an additional influence. It is an impossible thing to explain to another and if i were to try some would not believe me anyhow. It is an extremely personal interaction with something internal and somewhat external that is outside of the typical influence.

I believe we all multi tiered. At the deepest level is our code. It is the base of our "morality/principles". A multitude of factors have led to the creation of this code. No two people will have the same code because no two people will have all the same distinctive factors that formed this code. It is at levels beyond this that we have our behaviors, interests and preferences, among other things.

To me "sin" is when someone believes/knows/feels WITHIN themselves that something is "wrong"(the factors are as vast as humanity because each human has a very distinct definition of these things) and yet they make a choice to deliberately go against their moral/values. Of course, there are laws that one must obey but this is not the same thing.

Since no two people have the same guidelines and what these guidelines are is extremely internal i could not determine what is right or wrong in another person. I can only determine this for myself.

I agree with you that "understanding" is necessary for interpretation. But "understanding" either is or is not. You are capable of it or you are not. IMO the way to gain knowledge with may lead to growth of understanding, beyond our initial assessments, is to gain as much new info as possible. To look at the wisdom of others and see where it fits into your own structure. Again this will not be the same for any two people. This is interpretation. It is by the interpretation I believe that we are able to "grow". We take what others have learned and fit it to be our own. Adding to our own understanding.

I meant no offense by suggesting Atheism is IMO faith. Faith suggests that we trust something to be true. To my Atheist friends and family it is considering the absence of "proof" of divinity, which leads them to a place of truth inside. To some believers it is the absence of "proof" that there is no divinity, that leads them to a place of truth inside. Each side "trusts" that their truth is true outside of themselves as well as inside.

There are COUNTLESS influential factors (internal/external)that serve to form a person's values/morals making the journey extremely personal. There are societal guidelines that of course must be considered to some degree, these may agree or be contrary to a person's morals/values.

For example...if i live in a society where it is deemed appropriate to belittle and deprive a segment of the population liberties and protections, i would have to consider where this fits within my code.

If i found it "wrong" i would be obligated to attempt to do what i felt "right" regardless of society. Would others feel it "wrong"? Possibly not. There would be countless degrees of acceptance/rejection.

Laws are different. By the nature of law, punishment is required for rejection of the law. Does this make someone "damned", by the definition of my faith, if they break a law doing something which they personally do not find against their code? I believe no. Will they be arrested? yes. Are each of these dependent on the other? no.

Sometimes law abiding itself falls within a person's moral/value system. Sometimes it does not.


Although these things are too complicated to offer a complete explanation in a post, i have tried to explain the basics of what i believe. I do not expect it to be the same for anyone else. Just where my understanding has led me personally. : )

[I_Love_Oregon]

21. great versus

Thanks for the info and your understanding of the matter.

[mordarlar]

23. : )

[CindyDale]

10. Yes, it makes more sense

There are also questions about which books belong in the Bible and which do not. Here is a site that discusses how the Bible was compiled:

http://www.ntcanon.org/

[I_Love_Oregon]

22. I"ve read Elaine Pagels

Her work studying the "Knostic Gospels", and 1st century Christianity is fascinating. When the Canon was developed a few hundred years later, I don't think there can by any doubt that "politics" played a role in what books were left out, and which were included. For me, the Bible is a great source of understanding about divinity, God, and Jesus, but it is incomplete. I leave the full breadth of understanding to ourselves to complete, and I think this is the way God wants it.

[kwassa]

30. Did you read "Beyond Belief" by Pagels?

I just finished it recently.

I thought her comparison of the Gospels of Thomas and John fascinating, and the role of John in advancing, alone, the concept that Christ was divine, unlike the other gospels. Quite an excellent and fascinating analysis.

[I_Love_Oregon]

34. yes

I recently read parts of her book. I agree that it's very interesting stuff.

[Lexingtonian]

11. oh, that...it's all a very old story now

There are inherent problems in translation of anything even slightly complicated, let alone theological texts. Languages do their work of conveying meanings in ways that are often very difficult to emulate or capture well in any other one.

Remember that you are looking at a text whose authoritative version is in 1st or 2nd century Greek, which is in large part as good a translation as possible (thus, imperfect) of language, taken from oral tradition itself possibly corrupt, that was Aramaic, Latin, or Hebrew when spoken a good part of a century earlier.

There are letters from the 4th/5th century where the authors, folks in the Church at the time, complain bitterly that their superiors are doing a lot of revising and rewriting and editing of the New Testament to fit their theology and knock out Gnostic interpretations. Epiphanius and St. Jerome are the most famous. So the text passed on to us is damaged in certain ways, perhaps even fundamentally.

The story of Biblical translation to English is a long one. The KJV is considered probably the best as a literary work and fidelity to the text; but its English is so much more Germanic in its syntactic and semantic structure than any other text read today that American English and International English speakers today have trouble keeping up with the substance of what is being said. That makes it "impressive" as language, to be sure, with all the prestige that comes with archaism and makes the poetry in its language that much more noticeable.

There are websites out there that argue the merits of all the English revisions- the (very rarely used/unprinted) SV, the RSV, the variants on the RSV, the ones the different denominations made in the Sixties to fit their theology. My personal bete noir in that game is the New International Version (NIV)- it's a version in which every possible opportunity in which an inch is given a mile is taken in skewing the contents to what the Missionizing/Witnessing/Evangelizing crowd want there to be in the text to impress the would-be converts of the truth of the Sin, Hell, and Christolatry misconceptualization of the religion. Every time your church has to resort to quoting from the NIV, chances are the ministerial folk are trying to scam you. The Campus Crusade sorts and televangelists love it- that's all you really need to know.

[Hissyspit]

15. Some things are not particularly translatable to begin with...

[neweurope]

12. Just googled some to find out what the german translation says and

I come up with both versions - "within you" and "in the midst of you". In German the difference doesn't sound as big though - "in the midst of you" sounding like "it's (The kingdom of God = God, not the person of Jesus) already here, you just have to choose it."


-------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Petrushka]

16. It might be helpful to note that . . .

. . . in Strong's Concordance, the word "within" (as used in Luke 17:21) can be found in the Greek at #1787. If you don't have a Strong's, check it out here:

www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1107338709-4267.html

Please note that the Greek word for "within"--entos--can be found in only one other NT passage, Matthew 23:26. Compare that verse with the one from Luke and decide, for yourself, if "midst" would mean the same thing as "within". ;-)
.
As for the word "midst": It's #3319 in Strong's and you'll find it here:

www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1107338993-4341.html

Hope that helps. Since there are more words in the NT that have been translated to mean "within", each one has a different Strong's number. (Look up #1722 & #2081, for instance.) Anyone who wants some serious Bible study needs (IMHO) a Strong's Concordance and a KJV known as "The Companion Bible".

[Disturbed]

17. "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured,"

Does this mean that Jesus sanctioned torture?

[Petrushka]

19. Since that isn't from the KJV . . .

. . . I did a google.com to find out that it's from some other translation of the Bible at Matthew 18:34. The KJV reads as follows:

And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

So. "Does that mean that Jesus sanctioned torture?" Nope! You're asking a question based on a biblical passage taken out of context. You have to begin reading at verse 21--and continue through to verse 35--to "get the message". Those verses are about forgiveness; and, as it says in the Lord's Prayer:

Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.--or--Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

Would you believe that the word "torture" isn't in the KJV NT? But . . . the word "tortured" is in there one time . . . in Hebrews 11:25. Same with the word "jailors"--not in there . . . but "jailor", singular, is used once . . . in Acts 16:23. Now I have to bookmark this thread so I won't forget to check into all those verses to see what the difference is between being tortured and tormented.

:-)

[I_Love_Oregon]

24. very interesting

Thanks for the link. The 1a definition says that "midst" refers to literally, "the midst within you". Therefore, I can see your point about the confusion of it all. However, clearly, the translator of the passage assumes that "midst of you" does NOT in fact refer to "within you". He is clearly attempting to distance Jesus from our own divinity.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Even the gospels contradict each other regarding this point

From what I have read, it is the Gospel of John that started the trend among christians to see god has something outside of themselves. Of course, this is a great way to make people beholden to you, if the only way to god is through a particular teacher or group.

I prefer the gnostic point of view, which is that god is within us. However, the gnostic were deemed heretics when christianity and the Roman empire rulers joined forces, so a lot of the original teachings were lost or buried. Seems the powers that be didn't want no stinkin' self-reliant christians going around empowering people. That would be bad for business.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. i agree

[cags]

25. I have the translation straight from Aramaic to English

Not from Latin and Greek so the Aramaic (the language of Jesus) I take as more accurate than being translated from Latin or Greek.
and it says

Luke 17:20
When some of the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come, he answered, saying to them, The kingdom of God does not come from observation. 21 Neither will they say, Behold, it is here! or, behold, it is there! for behold the kingdom of God is within you.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. here's how my Catholic version reads....

Luke 17:20

20 Once, on being asked by the pharisees when the reign of God would come, he replied: "You cannot tell by careful watching when the reign of God will come.

21 Neither is it a matter of reporting that it is 'here' or 'there.' The reign of God is already in your midst."


my take is that he was referring to himself

[I_Love_Oregon]

27. hmmm

I think this "in your midst" stuff is in error. As it has now been clearly pointed out, the original verse uses the words "within you". I'm not trying to doubt your understanding, but I just think it's fascinating how two or three words can so fundamentally alter our understanding of the text.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. you most read the entire chapter to understand that Jesus was showing that

he was God...Luke 17:1-10 Four Sayings of Jesus. 11-19 Ten Lepers. 20-21 Coming Reign of God and 23-37 Day of the Son of Man...

Jesus teaching that He is God...and that God is "within" us all

[slutticus]

33. Wasn't this the subject of that movie "Stigmata"?

Or was that something to do with the dead sea scrolls? Something about the kingdom of god being within you...or something like that. The catholic church was afraid of the true meaning of Jesus' words.


I can't remember.